Analysis of Bank Loan, Innovation, Economic Growth Relations: Evidence from G-20

Abstract

In economics literature, technological innovation is accepted endogenously in theories of growth. However, it is also important how the financing of the innovation that contributed to the economic development in the previous phase should be. Schumpeter believes that earnings from entrepreneurial intellectual ideas will be a different driving force for new growth streams, attaching particular importance to bank credits for financing innovation. The purpose of this study is to empirically examine the relationship between bank and innovation with the Schumpeterian approach and the relationship between innovation and economic growth in two stages. For this, in period of 1995-2015, panel cointegration tests were applied to the variables in the empirical analysis where the data of the G-20 countries. According to the test findings, it is accepted that panel data of bank credits given to the private sector with innovation and panel data of innovation with economic growth are cointegrated. Long term cointegration coefficients of the variables across the panel were investigated by the Panel Dynamic Ordinary Least Squares (PDOLS) method. The empirical result shows that bank credit is related to innovation and innovation is also related to economic growth positive and significant in a long-term.

Keywords

• Bank Credit
• Innovation
• Economic Growth
• Panel Data
• G- 20

Banka Kredisi, İnovasyon, Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkilerinin Analizi: G-20 Örneği

Öz

Ekonomi literatüründe teknolojik inovasyon, büyüme teorilerinde içsel kabul edilmektedir. Oysa bir önceki aşamada ekonomik gelişime katkı sağlayan inovasyonun finansmanının nasıl olması gerektiği de önemlidir. Girişimcilerin inovativ fikirlerinden doğan kazançların yeni büyüme akımları için farklı bir sürükleyici güç olacağına inanan Schumpeter, inovasyonun finansmanı için banka kredilerine özel bir önem atfetmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Schumpeter’in yaklaşıma uygun banka kredileri - inovasyon ilişkisini, ardından inovasyonekonomik büyüme ilişkisini ampirik olarak incelemektir. Bunun için 1995-2015 döneminde, G-20 ülkelerinin verilerine panel eşbütünleşme analizi uygulanmıştır. Test bulgularına göre özel sektöre verilen banka kredileri ile inovasyon panel verilerinin ve ekonomik büyüme ile inovasyon panel verilerinin eş bütünleşik olduğu kabul edilmiştir. Panel genelinde değişkenlerin uzun dönem eş bütünleşme katsayıları Panel Dinamik En Küçük Kareler (PDOLS) metodu ile araştırılmıştır. Ampirik çalışmadan çıkan sonuç, G-20 ülkelerinde banka kredisinin inovasyonla ve inovasyonun da ekonomik büyümeyle uzun dönemli pozitif ve anlamlı ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Banka Kredisi
• İnovasyon
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Panel Veri
• G-20

Kaynakça

1. Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992). A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction, Econometrica, 60, 323- 351.
2. Akinwale, Y. O., Dada, A. D., Oluwadare, A. J., Jesuleye, O. A., ve Siyanbola, W. O. (2012). Understanding the nexus of R&D, innovation and economic growth in Nigeria. International Business Research, 5(11), 187.
3. Amore, M. D., Schneider, C., ve Žaldokas, A. (2013). Credit supply and corporate innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 109(3), 835-855.
4. Atanassov, J., Nanda, V. K., ve Seru, A. (2007. Finance and innovation: The case of publicly traded firms, Ross School of Business Paper, (970), 50s.
5. Bagehot, W. (1999). Lombard Street: a description of the money market, 5th ed. New York: John Wiley & Son İnc.
6. Baltagi, B. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
7. Bassanini, A. ve Scarpetta, S. (2001). The Driving Forces of Economic Growth: Panel Data Evidence For The OECD Countries”, OECD Economic Studies, No. 33.
8. Benfratello, L., Schiantarelli, F., ve Sembenelli, A. (2008). Banks and innovation: Microeconometric evidence on Italian firms, Journal of Financial Economics, 90(2), 197-217.

9. Bittencourt, M. (2012). Financial development and economic growth in Latin America: Is Schumpeter right?, Journal of Policy Modeling, 34(3), 341-355.
10. Bönte, W. ve Nielen, S. (2010). Innovation, credit constraints, and trade credit: Evidence from a cross-country study. (No. sdp10005). Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.
11. Breitung, J. (1999). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data, Discussion Paper. Berlin: Humboldt University.
12. Breitung, J. ve Pesaran, M.H. (2008). Unit Roots and Cointegration in Panels, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
13. Brenner, T. (2014). Science, Innovation and National Growth. Working Papers on.
14. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data, Journal of international money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272.
15. Er, Bünyamin, Yunus Emre Şahin, ve Mesut Mutlu. (2015). Girişimciler İçin Alternatif Finansman Kaynakları: Mevcut Durum ve Öneriler, Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 1.1, 31-54.
16. Falvey, R., Foster, N., ve Greenaway, D. (2006). Intellectual property rights and economic growth. Review of Development Economics, 10(4), 700-719.
17. Granger, C. W., & Newbold, P. (1974). Spurious regressions in econometrics. Journal of econometrics, 2(2), 111-120.
18. Gürkan, C. (2007). Veblen, Schumpeter ve Teknoloji, in. E. Özveren (Eds.). Kurumsal İktisat. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, s. 237-282.
19. Güvenek B. ve Alptekin, V. (2010). “Enerji Tüketimi ve Büyüme İlişkisi: OECD Ülkelerine İlişkin Bir Panel Veri Analizi”, Enerji, Piyasa ve Düzenleme, 1(2),172-193.
20. Hall, B. H. (2002). The financing of research and development. Oxford review of economic policy, 18(1), 35-51.
21. Howitt, P., ve Aghion, P., (1998). Capital accumulation and innovation as complementary factors in long-run growth, Journal of Economic Growth, 3(2), 111-130.
22. Hsu, P. H., Tian, X., ve Xu, Y. (2014). Financial development and innovation: Cross-country evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 112(1), 116-135.
23. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H, ve Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels, Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), s. 53-74.
24. İçke, M. A., (2014), “Schumpeter Ve Yeniliklerin Finansmanı”, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), s. 17-38.
25. Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data, Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), 1-44.
26. Kao, C., ve Chiang, M. H., (2000). Testing for structural change of a cointegrated regression in panel data, Syracuse University. Manuscript, 24s. Available from Internet: http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/cdkao/working/change.pdf.
27. King, R. G., ve Levine, R., (1993). Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), s. 717-737.
28. Maddala, G. S. ve Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 61(S1), 631-652.
29. Levin, A., Lin, C. F., ve Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties, Journal of econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
30. Lichtenberg, F.R. (1993). R&D Investment and International Productivity Differences, NBER Working Paper Series, No. 4161.
31. Meierrieks, D. (2014). Financial Development and Innovation: Is There Evidence of a Schumpeterian FinanceInnovation
32. Nexus?, Annals Of Economics And Finanace, 15(2), 343-363.
33. Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(s1), 653-670.
34. Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis, Econometric theory, 20(03), 597-625.
35. Romer, P.M. (1986). Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth, The Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002- 1037.
36. Romer, P.M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change, The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71-102
37. Schumpeter, J. A. [1911] (1934), The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Shane, S., ve Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research, Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
38. Sinha, T. (2001). The role of financial intermediation in economic growth: Schumpeter revisited, Economic theory in the light of Schumpeter's scientific heritage, 63-70.
39. Stock, J. H. ve Watson, M. W. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 61(4), 783-820.
40. Sungur, O., Aydın, H. İ., ve Eren, M. V. (2016). Türkiye’de AR-GE, İnovasyon, İhracat ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: Asimetrik Nedensellik Analizi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1).
41. Sombart, W. (1927). Der moderne Kapitalismus, Band III: Das Wirtschaftsleben im Zeitalter des Hochkapitalismus, Duncker & Humblot, München.
42. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2013). Panel veri ekonometrisi. Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul.
43. Zhang, L., Song, W., ve He, J. (2012). Empirical Research on the Relationship between Scientific Innovation and Economic Growth in Beijing. Technology and Investment, 3(03), 168.